First of all, I have been using Linux for 2 years as a hobby and DecUnix and DecVMS for more than 4 years whilst I worked as a PC/Telecomms tech programmer for my local Stock Exchange. I also used Microsoft products.
When I state service, I am refering to a service that is served back and/or forth between the server, other servers and their client machines via some transmission line, ethernet or whatever.
Sure, a Mac can be serving a user Photoshop but this is not what I am refering to as being a server.
The common defenition of a workstation is one that has its CPU and disks used by the person in front of that particular computer, usually by the same person and usually for 8 hours a day. For the other 16 hours of the day, these machine are usually turned off to conserve power. Unless of course they have shared file systems or printers that are required to be up 24/7. But for the most part, this is not the case. Any decent sys admin will have this type of task delegated to a machine that is specifically set up to serve these tasks, which is good for backup ease.
The servers on the other hand usually stay up for obvious reasons. Mail serving, file, print, web, db, whatever.
"All computers are nothing but mere terminals jacking into the great global network."? You've been reading too much Cyberpunk fiction buddy.
But if it impresses you, my videocard'less OpenBSD firewall/NAT gateway is accessed through our network via its serial port through a DECServer700 from anywhere in the network which has a ssh client. (Whoops I better be carefull with my usage of the word client there, I would'nt want to confuse another AC).
You think that the average workstation has the same uptime as the average server? I'm not refering to possibilities, I am refering to real world usage. Which is what I am questioning in this survey.
This "kid" does'nt need his 10+ years in electronics/computing to know the above.
So by your definition, a Workstation can instantly become a Server by just leaving it on. So I don't have to enable any services, no ftp or http daemons? No SMB or DECNet? Not even a little Appletalk or IPX? Nothing but an untouched power switch eh?
So you gunna give me more info on these 2 incredible OS' you have written or are you going to remain just another AC kiddie?
What OS have you written AC? It does'nt take an OS coder to know the difference.
You can't rope me into YOUR argument AC. Obviously to everyone but yourself, when I state "server" I am speaking of a computer which has the role of serving services 24/7, and when I state "workstation" I am speaking of a machine that is used by individuals on a daily basis which is usually switched off at night.
The relevance in what I have said, is not in the choice of OS but the application of it.
As *BSD's tend to be servers, and Linux tends to have a much higher number of workstation and newbie use, plus the fact that Linux boxes probably get tinkered with a lot more than *BSD boxes. The average uptime for a give OS/kernel version is completely irrelevant if they should be compared with reliability in mind.
What is important is the maximum uptime for a given OS version. Notice that the maximum uptimes for the various Linux kernels are close to the actual age of those kernels! What does that tell you?
The fact that Microsoft could'nt break 7 weeks reflects what I have witnessed in every contract I have had.
Sure maybe not now, but how long will it take one of the many hackers/programmers in the OpenSource family to find a way through "yet another stupid MS security scheme"?
Last thing I read on an MS security issue, they were XOR'ing passwords with the stream susageP, Pegasus spelt backwards! (for WinCE logons).;)
Can they crack Linux or BSD filesystems that are encrypted with the REAL encryption available for free? TripleDES, Blowfish, etc? At least we don't put blind faith into a corp that continuously lets us down after stating how wonderful, stable and secure their crap is.
Linux is stable, can be secured network wise far better than any MS "OS" and can be secured to the extreme as far as filesystem goes.
Lets not even mention OpenBSD, or it would REALLY start looking embarassing for Mega$haft.
Has there been a Linux vs. *BSD vs. NT shootout at a PC show?
If not, why the hell not?
I'd like to see a single SMP, multi UltraII SCSI disk'ed server tested with various types of clients at one of these shows. How would NT fare against Mandrake 6.1 plus latest Mandrake kernel and the modified Apache 1.3.9 as far as web and file serving speed goes. Or OpenBSD as far as security goes.
I've never seen an NT server stay up for more than 7 weeks. No stinking Mindjob tests are going to change my experiences with NT. Experiences with ultra expensive DEC Alpha and x86 hardware that is brought to its knees by NT. Whilst the same model of Alpha sitting next to the NT box, but running VMS non-stop.
What's more, if you spend the time looking, you can find ~30 other tests that show the very opposite of Mindshaft's tests. Interestingly enough, none of which are Mickey$loth paid for.
I tried it in Windows 95 about 2 years ago over two USR 33.6 modems and it was just plain bad. I would get occasional audio back and forth but mostly just noise and silence. Nothing that could possibly support voice communication. I tried all the codecs and sampling rates, even switching encryption off!! No help at all.
So I put this down to the fact that the modems speed and latency where the culprits. Once I checked PGPfone between my 2 PC's with their 100Mbit NIC's, both having full duplex sound cards, etc, finding that the results were EXACTLY the same led me to give up on PGPfone.
Was it just my setup, or have people actually managed to get it to work well? Hopefully the Linux community will get it going perfectly.
I had many problems installing COL2.2, onto a dual boot with 98. But the most interesting was that when I selected my Linux partition in the COL setup, it placed the root dir on my Windows partition!!! Exactly the opposite of what I had selected. I would have lost my StarCraft save games!!:) I must get it going under Wine some day. So I remain using Linux fdisk for maximizing my options. Hell I boot off the Mandrake CD to run fdisk for NT installs to place swap partitions at the beginning of drives.;) I purchased COL2.2 because I wanted to support Caldera in their quest to shaft Mega$haft, plus the added bonus of showing friends and colegues how easy Linux can be to set up. When I signed onto the COL mailing list I was not surprised to see many people with other strange problems. It seems that there were different (hush hush) version of the COL2.2 CD's. Anyway, I started with Red Hat 5.0, then RH5.2, COL2.2 and now Mandrake 6.0. I'm sticking with Mandrake. Fast and stable. PS. You know you have troubles on a COL install when it gets to 900% and counting!
If a contractor is no good, he/she does not get a re-newed contract. They tend to be much better.
Re:Speaking of uptime...
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 1
Oh come on, what are you smoking.
At work my Win95 boxes BSOD every 1-2 days. My Linux PC at home has NEVER crashed in the 2 years I've been using it (Red Hat 5.0, 5.2, COL2.2, Mandrake 6.0) including custom kernels. The NT servers require a reboot every month to 6 weeks for one reason or another. It's usually out of hours to minimize impact. Admittedly my NT Workstation has never BSOD'ed, but that may be because it only works for 8-12 hour stretches.
These NT servers that I have personal knowledge of include Stock Exchange, Uni, and BIG Co.'s the likes of some certain Cola beverage Co.'s with big budgets feeding big quality servers.
It does'nt even take an idiot to know that M$ OS's SUCK when it comes to reliability. You can say all you like about me being another of these "omplete idiot pretending they're an admin", but I'm not, and don't pretend to be, I just know what I see and can't be blamed for judging MS based on that.
My 8Mb Matrox Millenium G200 SGRAM makes my Acerview 79g 17" monitor look almost as sharp as a nice LCD.
RAMDAC speed is not everything, quality that gives great sharpness is more important to me, especially when my MGAG200's 250MHz RAMDAC never gets used at that speed anyway.
Each pixel at my prefered 1152x864 true colour is rendered sharply as square'ish and not blurred into each other.
RAMDAC quality is just as important as monitor quality and Matrox do a fantastic job of their RAMDAC's.
In contrast, my Number9 card gives a slightly unfocused display on the same monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you on about?
Define "server" in relation to "Workstation". And then please explain to me why the difference is irrelevent in practical usage.
I am not speaking of possibilities, I am speaking of what occurs in the real world.
Does your 1st OS start up with the text, "Hello world?" and your 2nd "Hello World!"?
:)
First of all, I have been using Linux for 2 years as a hobby and DecUnix and DecVMS for more than 4 years whilst I worked as a PC/Telecomms tech programmer for my local Stock Exchange. I also used Microsoft products.
When I state service, I am refering to a service that is served back and/or forth between the server, other servers and their client machines via some transmission line, ethernet or whatever.
Sure, a Mac can be serving a user Photoshop but this is not what I am refering to as being a server.
The common defenition of a workstation is one that has its CPU and disks used by the person in front of that particular computer, usually by the same person and usually for 8 hours a day. For the other 16 hours of the day, these machine are usually turned off to conserve power. Unless of course they have shared file systems or printers that are required to be up 24/7. But for the most part, this is not the case. Any decent sys admin will have this type of task delegated to a machine that is specifically set up to serve these tasks, which is good for backup ease.
The servers on the other hand usually stay up for obvious reasons. Mail serving, file, print, web, db, whatever.
"All computers are nothing but mere terminals jacking into the great global network."? You've been reading too much Cyberpunk fiction buddy.
But if it impresses you, my videocard'less OpenBSD firewall/NAT gateway is accessed through our network via its serial port through a DECServer700 from anywhere in the network which has a ssh client. (Whoops I better be carefull with my usage of the word client there, I would'nt want to confuse another AC).
What's that, a pico-HOWTO?
You think that the average workstation has the same uptime as the average server? I'm not refering to possibilities, I am refering to real world usage. Which is what I am questioning in this survey.
This "kid" does'nt need his 10+ years in electronics/computing to know the above.
So by your definition, a Workstation can instantly become a Server by just leaving it on. So I don't have to enable any services, no ftp or http daemons? No SMB or DECNet? Not even a little Appletalk or IPX? Nothing but an untouched power switch eh?
So you gunna give me more info on these 2 incredible OS' you have written or are you going to remain just another AC kiddie?
What OS have you written AC? It does'nt take an OS coder to know the difference.
You can't rope me into YOUR argument AC. Obviously to everyone but yourself, when I state "server" I am speaking of a computer which has the role of serving services 24/7, and when I state "workstation" I am speaking of a machine that is used by individuals on a daily basis which is usually switched off at night.
The relevance in what I have said, is not in the choice of OS but the application of it.
Get over it.
I just love these AC's that start a reply with a "bzzzt" or a "wrong!".
My point is that a server is much less likely to be periodically rebooted than a workstation is.
You're gunna argue with that because of what YOU do? I'm speaking for the average situation.
It's not stupid. You think I believe that a server is any computer that is not switched off? Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.
As *BSD's tend to be servers, and Linux tends to have a much higher number of workstation and newbie use, plus the fact that Linux boxes probably get tinkered with a lot more than *BSD boxes. The average uptime for a give OS/kernel version is completely irrelevant if they should be compared with reliability in mind.
What is important is the maximum uptime for a given OS version. Notice that the maximum uptimes for the various Linux kernels are close to the actual age of those kernels! What does that tell you?
The fact that Microsoft could'nt break 7 weeks reflects what I have witnessed in every contract I have had.
In most countries, they would deny having done such actions and in some they'd just kill you for suspecting a national security breach.
At least the Aussies admit to being willing to investigate you to no end if you have enough evidence stacked against you.
The US is a bit Mickey Mouse with a H&K MP5 behind his back.
Sure maybe not now, but how long will it take one of the many hackers/programmers in the OpenSource family to find a way through "yet another stupid MS security scheme"?
Last thing I read on an MS security issue, they were XOR'ing passwords with the stream susageP, Pegasus spelt backwards! (for WinCE logons).
Can they crack Linux or BSD filesystems that are encrypted with the REAL encryption available for free? TripleDES, Blowfish, etc? At least we don't put blind faith into a corp that continuously lets us down after stating how wonderful, stable and secure their crap is.
Linux is stable, can be secured network wise far better than any MS "OS" and can be secured to the extreme as far as filesystem goes.
Lets not even mention OpenBSD, or it would REALLY start looking embarassing for Mega$haft.
So can you enlighten those that are less gifted in the required knowledge or point them to a howto, etc?
I don't need it as I support them with CDROM and T-Shirt purchases. But the knowledge would be nice regardless of the usage.
Thanks.
Has there been a Linux vs. *BSD vs. NT shootout at a PC show?
If not, why the hell not?
I'd like to see a single SMP, multi UltraII SCSI disk'ed server tested with various types of clients at one of these shows. How would NT fare against Mandrake 6.1 plus latest Mandrake kernel and the modified Apache 1.3.9 as far as web and file serving speed goes. Or OpenBSD as far as security goes.
I've never seen an NT server stay up for more than 7 weeks. No stinking Mindjob tests are going to change my experiences with NT. Experiences with ultra expensive DEC Alpha and x86 hardware that is brought to its knees by NT. Whilst the same model of Alpha sitting next to the NT box, but running VMS non-stop.
What's more, if you spend the time looking, you can find ~30 other tests that show the very opposite of Mindshaft's tests. Interestingly enough, none of which are Mickey$loth paid for.
Get in the ring Bill.
Or does it?
I tried it in Windows 95 about 2 years ago over two USR 33.6 modems and it was just plain bad. I would get occasional audio back and forth but mostly just noise and silence. Nothing that could possibly support voice communication. I tried all the codecs and sampling rates, even switching encryption off!! No help at all.
So I put this down to the fact that the modems speed and latency where the culprits. Once I checked PGPfone between my 2 PC's with their 100Mbit NIC's, both having full duplex sound cards, etc, finding that the results were EXACTLY the same led me to give up on PGPfone.
Was it just my setup, or have people actually managed to get it to work well? Hopefully the Linux community will get it going perfectly.
I like the fact that Mandrake give the options of KDE, E, etc.
At least it defaults to KDE for newbies.
I had many problems installing COL2.2, onto a dual boot with 98. But the most interesting was that when I selected my Linux partition in the COL setup, it placed the root dir on my Windows partition!!! Exactly the opposite of what I had selected. I would have lost my StarCraft save games!! :) I must get it going under Wine some day. So I remain using Linux fdisk for maximizing my options. Hell I boot off the Mandrake CD to run fdisk for NT installs to place swap partitions at the beginning of drives. ;) I purchased COL2.2 because I wanted to support Caldera in their quest to shaft Mega$haft, plus the added bonus of showing friends and colegues how easy Linux can be to set up. When I signed onto the COL mailing list I was not surprised to see many people with other strange problems. It seems that there were different (hush hush) version of the COL2.2 CD's. Anyway, I started with Red Hat 5.0, then RH5.2, COL2.2 and now Mandrake 6.0. I'm sticking with Mandrake. Fast and stable. PS. You know you have troubles on a COL install when it gets to 900% and counting!
I have come across cards that feature the option of a custom MAC address. Some Intel and DEC cards for eg.
My D-Link DFE500TX allows the changing of the MAC in the Windows 95 NIC properties!
In MS-DOG it can be done in protocol.ini for the cards I've seen also.
So why not in Linux?
If a contractor is no good, he/she does not get a re-newed contract. They tend to be much better.
Oh come on, what are you smoking.
At work my Win95 boxes BSOD every 1-2 days. My Linux PC at home has NEVER crashed in the 2 years I've been using it (Red Hat 5.0, 5.2, COL2.2, Mandrake 6.0) including custom kernels. The NT servers require a reboot every month to 6 weeks for one reason or another. It's usually out of hours to minimize impact. Admittedly my NT Workstation has never BSOD'ed, but that may be because it only works for 8-12 hour stretches.
These NT servers that I have personal knowledge of include Stock Exchange, Uni, and BIG Co.'s the likes of some certain Cola beverage Co.'s with big budgets feeding big quality servers.
It does'nt even take an idiot to know that M$ OS's SUCK when it comes to reliability. You can say all you like about me being another of these "omplete idiot pretending they're an admin", but I'm not, and don't pretend to be, I just know what I see and can't be blamed for judging MS based on that.
Wake up.
Well take a look at this Anon Coward...
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186-1/
My 8Mb Matrox Millenium G200 SGRAM makes my Acerview 79g 17" monitor look almost as sharp as a nice LCD.
RAMDAC speed is not everything, quality that gives great sharpness is more important to me, especially when my MGAG200's 250MHz RAMDAC never gets used at that speed anyway.
Each pixel at my prefered 1152x864 true colour is rendered sharply as square'ish and not blurred into each other.
RAMDAC quality is just as important as monitor quality and Matrox do a fantastic job of their RAMDAC's.
In contrast, my Number9 card gives a slightly unfocused display on the same monitor.